The learning style individual difference factor has long been a basis for understanding student preferences for various learning activities. Marketing educators have been advised to heavily invest in tailoring course design based on the learning style groups in their classes. A further exploration of the effects of learning style differences on the perceived effectiveness of 21 learning activities was conducted. Results from the survey responses of 227 students at eight universities suggest that a high-investment strategy of catering intensively to learning style individual differences is not warranted. Rather, marketing educators can sufficiently meet the needs of students by providing a range of learning experiences that tap multiple learning modalities. Active learning pedagogies were seen as more effective.
Ackerman, David S., B. Gross, and L. Perner. 2003. Instructor, student, and employer perceptions on preparing marketing students for changing business landscapes. Journal of Marketing Education25 (1): 46-56.
2.
Frontczak, Nancy. 1990. The role of learning styles in marketing education. In Proceedings of the Western Marketing Educators'Association, 57-62, edited by J. Doutt and G. McKinnon. Las Vegas, NV: Western Marketing Educators' Association.
3.
Frontczak, Nancy. 1999. Student evaluation of an experiential learning technique: The marketing plan assignment. In Proceedings of the Western Marketing Educators'Association, edited by M. Curren and K. Harich, 36-43. Palm Springs, CA: Western Marketing Educators' Association.
4.
Frontczak, Nancy, and G. Rivale. 1991. An empirical investigation of learning styles in marketing education. In Proceedings of the Western Marketing Educators' Association, edited by G. McKinnon and C. Kelley, 93-100. San Diego, CA: Western Marketing Educators' Association.
5.
Karns, Gary. 1993. Marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education15 (1): 3-10.
6.
Kennedy, Ellen, L. Lawton, and E. Walker. 2001. The case for using live cases: Shifting the paradigm in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education23 (2): 145-151.
Loo, Robert. 2002. The distribution of learning styles and types for hard and soft business majors. Educational Psychology22 (3): 349-361.
9.
Loo, Robert. 2004. Kolb's learning styles and learning preferences: Is there a linkage?Educational Psychology24 (1): 99-108.
10.
Malhotra, Naresh, A. Tashchian, and A. Jain. 1989. The project method approach: An integrated teaching tool in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Education11 (2): 32-40.
11.
McCarthy, Bernice. 1980. The4MAT system: Teaching to learning styles with right/left mode techniques. Barrington, IL: Excel.
12.
McCuen, Barbara. 1986. Enjoyment of learning activities as a correlate of other perceptions and measures of academic performance in a marketing course. In Proceedings of the Western Marketing Educators'Association, edited by R. Collins and F. Palubinskas, 48-51. San Diego, CA: Western Marketing Educators' Association.
13.
Morrison, Mark, A. Sweeney, and T. Heffernan. 2003. Learning styles of oncampus and off-campus marketing students: The challenge for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education25 (3): 208-217.
14.
Smart, Denise, C. Kelley, and J. Conant. 2003. Mastering the art of teaching: Pursuing excellence in a newmillenium. Journal of Marketing Education25 (1): 71-78.
15.
Smith, Louise, and D. Van Doren. 2004. The reality-based learning method: A simple method for keeping teaching activities relevant and effective. Journal of Marketing Education26 (1): 66-74.
16.
Solomon, Barbara, and R. Felder. 2004. Index of Learning Styles. http://www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.html.
17.
Sood, James, and C. Valentine. 1983. An empirical investigation of the relationships between student learning styles and the acquisition of marketing knowledge. Journal of Marketing Education5 (2): 33-39.
18.
Tom, Gail, and S. Calvert. 1983. Learning style as a predictor of student performance and instructor evaluations. Journal of Marketing Education5 (2): 14-17.
